Changes in Perceived Fit as a Function of Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study of Fit in Teams D. Scott DeRue Frederick P. Morgeson Remus Ilies Michigan State University The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management Stephen Humphrey Florida State University

2 Person-Team Fit: A Review  Fit in Teams – Fit is experienced when an individual compares his or her personal characteristics with those of team members, and determines they are compatible (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001) – Comparisons have both cognitive and affective elements – Traditionally, a focus on the cognitive comparisons of individual characteristics – Neglects role of individual-level affect and emotion in perceptions of fit in teams

3 Person-Team Fit: Multidimensional  Existing literature on perceptions of fit suggest a 3-dimensional model of fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002) – Person-Organization Fit – Needs-Supplies Fit – Demands-Abilities Fit  We extend this same multidimensional conceptualization toward understanding perceptions of fit in the context of teams

4 Fit in Teams: Conceptual Model Positive Affect Other’s Emotional Appraisal Conscient iousness Task Skill General Cognitive Ability Affective & Motivationally Oriented Individual Differences Ability Oriented Individual Differences Person- Team Fit Change In Needs- Supplies Fit Change In Demands- Abilities Fit Stable Over Time Dynamic Over Time

5 Hypotheses: Person-Team Fit Positive Affect Other’s Emotiona l Appraisa l Conscien tiousness Affective & Motivation Oriented Individual Differences Person- Team Fit Stable Over Time Hypotheses 1. Team members’ ratings of person-team fit will be stable over time 2a. Positive affect will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2 2b. Other’s Emotional Appraisal will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2 2c. Conscientiousness will be positively related to person-team fit at both Time 1 and Time 2

6 Hypotheses: Needs-Supplies Fit Positive Affect Other’s Emotiona l Appraisa l Conscien tiousness Affective & Motivation Oriented Individual Differences Needs- Supplies Fit Dynamic Over Time Hypotheses 3a. Positive affect will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time 3b. Other’s Emotional Appraisal will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time 3c. Conscientiousness will be positively related to the change in needs-supplies fit over time

7 Hypotheses: Demands-Abilities Fit Task Skill General Cognitiv e Ability Ability Oriented Individual Differences Demands- Abilities Fit Dynamic Over Time Hypotheses 4a. Task skill will be positively related to the change in demands-abilities fit over time 4b. General cognitive ability will be positively related to the change in demands-abilities fit over time

8 Research Design  4-6 member teams (undergrads) with a single leader (MBA)  Leaders responsible for selection, recruiting, training, and overall team leadership  Networked command and control simulation across 12 occasions (6 weeks)  N = 132 team members

9 Results Positive Affect  2. Other’s Emotional Appraisal.36**  3. Conscientiousness.57**.25**  4. Task Skill  5. General Cognitive Ability **  6. Person-Team Fit (T1).26**.20*.30**  7. Person-Team Fit (T2).17*.23**.24** **  8. Needs-Supplies Fit (T1) **.43**  9. Needs-Supplies Fit (T2).22**.19*.27**.15.20*.40**.63**.44**  10. Demands-Abilities Fit (T1) **.39**.82**.42**  11. Demands-Abilities Fit (T2) **.34**.48**.40**.79**.43**  N = 132 *p <.05; **p <.01

10 Results: Person-Team Fit (H1) Hypothesis 1 supported...suggesting person-team fit is essentially stable over time Paired Samples T-Test Dimensions of Fit NCorrelationMean Standard Deviation Sig (2-tailed) PTfit T1 - PTfit T NSfit T1 – NSfit T DAfit T1 – DAfit T

11 Results: Person-Team Fit (H2) Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c supported…  H2a: Positive Affect  Person-Team Fit – r =.258; p <.01 (Time 1) – r =.173; p <.05 (Time 2)  H2b: Other’s Emotional Appraisal  Person-Team Fit – r =.203; p <.05 (Time 1) – r =.229; p <.01 (Time 2)  H2c: Conscientiousness  Person-Team Fit – r =.298; p <.01 (Time 1) – r =.243; p <.01 (Time 2)

12 Results: Needs-Supplies Fit (H3) Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c supported…  H3a: Positive Affect  ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit –  =.179; p <.05; ∆R 2 =.032  H3b: Other’s Emotional Appraisal  ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit –  =.165; p <.05; ∆R 2 =.027  H3c: Conscientiousness  ∆ in Needs-Supplies Fit –  =.209; p <.01; ∆R 2 =.043

13 Results: Demands-Abilities Fit (H4) Hypotheses 4a and 4b supported…  H4a: Task Skill  ∆ in Demands-Abilities Fit –  =..204; p <.01; ∆R 2 =.042  H4b: General Cognitive Ability  ∆ in Demands-Abilities Fit –  =.196; p <.05; ∆R 2 =.038

14 Implications  3-dimensional model of fit provides an insightful framework for understanding fit in the context of teams  Affective and emotionally-based individual differences must be considered with respect to perceptions of fit in teams  Perceptions of person-team fit are largely stable and predicted by positive affect, other’s emotional appraisal, and conscientiousness  Perceptions of needs-supplies fit are dynamic, and change in these perceptions is predicted by positive affect, other’s emotional appraisal, and conscientiousness  Perceptions of demands-abilities fit are dynamic, and change in these perceptions is predicted by task skill and general cognitive ability

15 Comments & Questions With additional comments or questions, please contact: D. Scott DeRue Michigan State University